Goforth v. State, 55503
| Decision Date | 20 June 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 55503,55503 |
| Citation | 775 S.W.2d 231 |
| Parties | James A. GOFORTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Barbara J. Martin, Jackson, for appellant.
William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., William J. Swift, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.
Movant appeals the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We affirm.
Movant was convicted by a jury of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment without eligibility for probation or parole for the 1985 shooting of Ralph Teeters outside a bar in Leadington, Missouri. His conviction was affirmed in State v. Goforth, 736 S.W.2d 552 (Mo.App.1987).
Movant filed his 29.15 motion on May 4, 1988, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. His motion was amended on July 1, 1988, to add an allegation of trial court error for failure to declare a mistrial due to an altercation between defense counsel and the prosecutor. The motion court summarily dismissed the motion for failure to allege sufficient facts to show he was entitled to relief. Rule 29.15(g). Our review is limited to a determination of whether the findings and conclusions of the motion court are clearly erroneous. Rule 29.15(j).
Two of the allegations movant contends entitled him to an evidentiary hearing involved an altercation at trial involving the prosecutor and defense counsel. The only reference to the incident on the record is found in the following exchange:
Movant first contends his attorney's conduct amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel and he was prejudiced thereby. Although the occurrence was unfortunate, we need not determine whether defense counsel's part therein amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. Movant's allegation is deficient in failing to allege facts with any degree of specificity as to how he was prejudiced by his attorney's conduct. See Tettamble v. State, 641 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Mo.App.1982). Furthermore, a review of the record does not evidence such prejudice. See Kurtz v. State, 645 S.W.2d 7, 9 (Mo.App.1982) ().
Movant contends the trial court erred in failing to declare a mistrial sua sponte after the altercation occurred. Because this issue could have been raised on direct appeal but was not, it may not be raised in a post-conviction motion absent rare and exceptional circumstances. Drake v. State, 753 S.W.2d 65, 67 (Mo.App.1988). We find no evidence in the record before us to indicate circumstances...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. Cassady
...movant told his attorney that he wanted to testify is insufficient. State v. Starks, 856 S.W.2d 334 (Mo. banc 1993); Goforth v. State, 775 S.W.2d 231 (Mo. [Ct.] App. 1989).The Court finds that the testimony of [Petitioner]'s trial counsel that she discussed with [Petitioner] whether he woul......
- Unnerstall v. State
-
State v. Hopkins, s. WD
...this court cannot conclude that Mr. Hiler's challenged remarks probably affected the outcome of the proceeding. See Goforth v. State, 775 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Mo.App.1989) (defense counsel's inappropriate demeanor, in altercation with prosecutor, insufficient to establish necessary prejudice in......
-
State v. Hill, Nos. 56971
...to entitle him to relief, as it does not allege what his testimony would have been and how it would have aided him. Goforth v. State, 775 S.W.2d 231, 233 (Mo.App.1989). Moreover, James' allegation is not supported by the record. At trial, James was questioned regarding his right to testify ......